First results are in on Obama's "new" foreign policy

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Iran's response to Obama's requests that they stop work on nuclear weapons: "Go F yourself".

I wonder how many Obama disciples will be surprised by this, as opposed to how many Republicans will be surprised.

BTW, the last sentence here identifies a VERY important part of President George W. Bush's overall strategy in the War by Terrorists Against the U.S. It's been carefully ignored by leftists everywhere, domestic and foreign. But Iran hears it loud and clear.

OK, Mr. President. Now that the results of your "negotiating" approach are in, what do we do now?

----------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE50R51B20090128?sp=true

Official: Iran rejects U.S. demand to halt atom work
Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:27am EST

By Parisa Hafezi and Edmund Blair

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will not halt sensitive nuclear work as demanded by President Barack Obama's administration, a close aide to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.

The new administration has said Obama would break from his predecessor by pursuing direct talks with Tehran but has also warned Iran to expect more pressure if it did not meet the U.N. Security Council demand to halt uranium enrichment.

Adviser to the president Aliakbar Javanfekr told Reuters Iran had no intention of stopping its nuclear activities, which the United States and other Western powers suspect are a front to build nuclear arms.

"We have no non-peaceful activities to suspend. All our activities are peaceful and under the supervision of the IAEA," he said in an interview in government offices in Tehran,.

Asked about U.N. resolutions demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment, he said: "We have passed that stage. We have rejected resolutions. Those resolutions were issued under U.S. pressure. We work in the framework of international laws."

"Obama should act realistically to avoid repeating (George W.) Bush's mistakes," he added.

Three rounds of U.N. sanctions have been imposed on Iran for not stopping and the Bush administration had sought a fourth.

Iran has repeatedly dismissed the impact of sanctions, and Javanfekr echoed this by saying sanctions were "ineffective."

Analysts say the measures are making it more costly for Iranian firms to do business and deterring foreign investors.

Obama's administration has said it would use "all elements of our national power" to address concerns about Iran's nuclear program and has not ruled out military action if needed.

Iran says it is prepared to defend the country if attacked.

Neither Obama nor his top aides have said exactly how they may approach Iran. Obama said in his first formal television interview that Washington was prepared to extend a hand of peace if Iran "unclenched its fist."

Javanfekr responded saying: "This is illogical to talk about unclenching fists when Iran is surrounded by American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq."
 
Werbung:

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,985
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
Don't be too sure......

Look, negotiations are made over time and conclusions are not determind by one round of talks especially with one round made by low officials or envoys. The rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is entierly consistent with his role within Iran, however, he does not have as much power within Iran as you may think. The clerics run Iran and they are the ones that will decide.

Theres a lot at stake here. For instance America has real problems in Afghanistan at the moment, the strategic situation really sucks and needs to be sorted out. The traditional re-supply routes through North Pakistan are threatened due to massive Jihadist activity and new routes (or alternatives) need to be found which means either via Russia or Iran and since Iran has more influence over Afghanistan than Russia..... guess which way America is going to go.....yup Iran. As I said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is playing the game as the tough cop, that's his job.

Watch this space.....

I'll lay odds that relations between the US and Iran will start to warm slightly over the next 12 months and I'll lay odds that the US rhetoric will change ever so slightly over the Iranian nuclear programme to accomodate an accord between the US and Iran.
 

HankHill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
293
Location
With your mom
I'll lay odds that relations between the US and Iran will start to warm slightly over the next 12 months and I'll lay odds that the US rhetoric will change ever so slightly over the Iranian nuclear programme to accomodate an accord between the US and Iran.

Iran will not change their nuclear plans at all, guaranteed.. They will however keep stating it is only for peaceful purposes, which is a crock (and you know it).

Odds are, there will be sanctions in Iran's future.
 

Pandora

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
11,790
Location
The people's republic of Eugene
Iran's response to Obama's requests that they stop work on nuclear weapons: "Go F yourself".

I wonder how many Obama disciples will be surprised by this, as opposed to how many Republicans will be surprised.

BTW, the last sentence here identifies a VERY important part of President George W. Bush's overall strategy in the War by Terrorists Against the U.S. It's been carefully ignored by leftists everywhere, domestic and foreign. But Iran hears it loud and clear.

OK, Mr. President. Now that the results of your "negotiating" approach are in, what do we do now?

----------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE50R51B20090128?sp=true

Official: Iran rejects U.S. demand to halt atom work
Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:27am EST

By Parisa Hafezi and Edmund Blair

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will not halt sensitive nuclear work as demanded by President Barack Obama's administration, a close aide to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.

The new administration has said Obama would break from his predecessor by pursuing direct talks with Tehran but has also warned Iran to expect more pressure if it did not meet the U.N. Security Council demand to halt uranium enrichment.

Adviser to the president Aliakbar Javanfekr told Reuters Iran had no intention of stopping its nuclear activities, which the United States and other Western powers suspect are a front to build nuclear arms.

"We have no non-peaceful activities to suspend. All our activities are peaceful and under the supervision of the IAEA," he said in an interview in government offices in Tehran,.

Asked about U.N. resolutions demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment, he said: "We have passed that stage. We have rejected resolutions. Those resolutions were issued under U.S. pressure. We work in the framework of international laws."

"Obama should act realistically to avoid repeating (George W.) Bush's mistakes," he added.

Three rounds of U.N. sanctions have been imposed on Iran for not stopping and the Bush administration had sought a fourth.

Iran has repeatedly dismissed the impact of sanctions, and Javanfekr echoed this by saying sanctions were "ineffective."

Analysts say the measures are making it more costly for Iranian firms to do business and deterring foreign investors.

Obama's administration has said it would use "all elements of our national power" to address concerns about Iran's nuclear program and has not ruled out military action if needed.

Iran says it is prepared to defend the country if attacked.

Neither Obama nor his top aides have said exactly how they may approach Iran. Obama said in his first formal television interview that Washington was prepared to extend a hand of peace if Iran "unclenched its fist."

Javanfekr responded saying: "This is illogical to talk about unclenching fists when Iran is surrounded by American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq."

I did not think it would help, there is no way to reason with crazy people
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
They are not even pretending to listen to Obama or the UN. Why should they? Without a UN resolution for military action against Iran, nothing will happen. Given how the UN never did anything about Iraq, it's unlikely they'll do anything about Iran either.

Further, they know Obama will be a push over. All democrats tend to be. Why bother even giving Obama the time of day, when the majority of Obama followers are spineless peacenics, who wouldn't stand up to a bully at the kindergarten playground.

Given what happened to Bush when he acted on damning intelligence about Saddam, there's no way Obama will do jack about Iran, and Iran knows it.

Funny how the UN is so important when we decide to do anything, but is meaningless when other nations defy the UN.

So much for the "whole world loves Obama!" crap.
 

Pandora

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
11,790
Location
The people's republic of Eugene
They are not even pretending to listen to Obama or the UN. Why should they? Without a UN resolution for military action against Iran, nothing will happen. Given how the UN never did anything about Iraq, it's unlikely they'll do anything about Iran either.

Further, they know Obama will be a push over. All democrats tend to be. Why bother even giving Obama the time of day, when the majority of Obama followers are spineless peacenics, who wouldn't stand up to a bully at the kindergarten playground.

Given what happened to Bush when he acted on damning intelligence about Saddam, there's no way Obama will do jack about Iran, and Iran knows it.

Funny how the UN is so important when we decide to do anything, but is meaningless when other nations defy the UN.

So much for the "whole world loves Obama!" crap.


Nothing will happen with Iran, or N korea

I am not sure about pakistan though, he really has it hard to get in there but I dont know why, we will have to fight and some inocent people might die and troops could be in harms way........with all those problems I just dont see why he wants to go in there and risk all that
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Nothing will happen with Iran, or N korea

I am not sure about pakistan though, he really has it hard to get in there but I dont know why, we will have to fight and some inocent people might die and troops could be in harms way........with all those problems I just dont see why he wants to go in there and risk all that

No joke. He already had a massive missile strike that killed many poor innocent people. The war will simply escalate. Not to mention we are still on the Bush "time table" for withdraw.

Kinda makes you wonder where that "Hope and Change" went to after the election?
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
Don't be too sure......

Look, negotiations are made over time and conclusions are not determind by one round of talks especially with one round made by low officials or envoys. The rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is entierly consistent with his role within Iran, however, he does not have as much power within Iran as you may think. The clerics run Iran and they are the ones that will decide.

I agree that the actual President does not have the final say-so. However, when he does act without comment from the clerics, you can assume they have bought into the same rhetoric already.

I agree talking takes time. Time however, is what we do not have. Especially if you want to prevent Iran from getting a weapon.

Theres a lot at stake here. For instance America has real problems in Afghanistan at the moment, the strategic situation really sucks and needs to be sorted out. The traditional re-supply routes through North Pakistan are threatened due to massive Jihadist activity and new routes (or alternatives) need to be found which means either via Russia or Iran and since Iran has more influence over Afghanistan than Russia..... guess which way America is going to go.....yup Iran. As I said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is playing the game as the tough cop, that's his job.

I disagree. For the US to do this, they will have to make concession that we are unwilling to make (or at least should be unwilling to make). Dealing with Iran in this regard will be the death nail in the fact that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. I would say that fact alone means that we do not ask the Iranians for supply routes.

Watch this space.....

I'll lay odds that relations between the US and Iran will start to warm slightly over the next 12 months and I'll lay odds that the US rhetoric will change ever so slightly over the Iranian nuclear programme to accomodate an accord between the US and Iran.

I agree the rhetoric will most likely change. However any change will be accepting that Iran has already won and will go nuclear. I see little success for the region, regardless of whether or not Washington and Tehran reach some accord. The mere fact that a nuclear Iran upsets the entire balance of power in the Middle East will not be settled by some meaningless accord. I will tell you right now that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are not going to rest their security on any accord such as you are describing.
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Somehow, I had thought Israel would have responded before now.
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
Somehow, I had thought Israel would have responded before now.

I do not think Israel can respond with our approval, which they are not going to get.

For them to act without it, I think it jeopardizes their security assurances from the United States. Now at what point does Israel say a nuclear Iran is worse than the potential loss of weapons/money/support from the US... that is an open question.
 

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,985
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
Iran says open to Afghan meeting offer from U.S.

Iran said on Saturday it would consider an invitation from its old foe the United States to attend a meeting on Afghanistan and it was ready to offer any help to its neighbour as it battles a Taliban insurgency.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that President Barrack Obama's government intended to invite Iran to an international conference on Afghanistan planned for this month.

"If America and European countries and others need to use Iran, they should give us (the request). We will review it with the approach that we are ready to offer any help to Afghanistan," Iranian government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham told a news conference.

The United States is at odds with Iran on a range of issues, including Tehran's nuclear programme which Washington says is aimed at building bombs. Iran says its programme is for peaceful power purposes.

Obama, in a turnaround from Bush administration policy, has said the United States wants to engage Iran and the Afghanistan invitation would be the start of diplomatic initiative to Tehran.

While Iran and the United States sat at the same table to discuss Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the Bush administration made sure the new pro-Western Afghan government kept Tehran at arm's length.

SHARED DISLIKE FOR TALIBAN

Elham stressed that Iran's priority was to help Afghanistan.

"For us Afghanistan is very important. Afghanistan's security is our security. Afghanistan's progress is our progress and Afghanistan's stability is ours," Elham said.

"Our issue is Afghanistan. Our issue is not them (the United States and its Western allies). Our issue is not NATO," he said.

Clinton proposed the conference, which brings in Afghanistan's other neighbours including Pakistan and other players, would take place on March 31.

"It is a way of bringing all the stakeholders and interested parties together," Clinton said in Brussels after meeting NATO foreign ministers. She was in Turkey on Saturday.

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Friday accused Iran of supporting the Taliban insurgency and urged Tehran to join international efforts to bring peace to the country.

The United States and Shi'ite Muslim Iran share a common dislike for the hardline Sunni Taliban but some analysts have said Iran may be providing some support to insurgents to tie down and irritate U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The United States cut off diplomatic ties with Tehran during the 1979-1981 hostage crisis, in which a group of militant Iranian students held 52 Americans hostage at the U.S. embassy for 444 days.

(Writing by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090307/tpl-uk-iran-usa-afghanistan-19346ad.html


told ya so..........:cool:
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
I do not think Israel can respond with our approval, which they are not going to get.

For them to act without it, I think it jeopardizes their security assurances from the United States. Now at what point does Israel say a nuclear Iran is worse than the potential loss of weapons/money/support from the US... that is an open question.

I don't think I'd be depending on foreign support. We almost didn't help at all during the Yon Kipper war. With a nuclear attack, depending on foreign help could be suicidal.
 
Werbung:

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
I don't think I'd be depending on foreign support. We almost didn't help at all during the Yon Kipper war. With a nuclear attack, depending on foreign help could be suicidal.

Israel needs the United States to continue selling weapons systems and missile defense batteries to remain secure.

In regards to a nuclear attack, a nuclear attack from what country, or on what country?
 
Top